Anderson v. Finkle
296 Neb. 797
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In May 2013, defendant Steve Finkle signed a promissory note to pay plaintiff Steven Anderson $50,000 (5% interest) by August 1, 2013; Finkle did not pay and the business venture failed.
- Anderson sued Finkle for breach of contract and quantum meruit; trial occurred August 25, 2015; Anderson died October 2, 2015; a personal representative (Janice Anderson) was appointed October 30, 2015.
- The district court entered judgment for Anderson on November 30, 2015, and later denied Finkle’s motion for new trial on January 29, 2016—both actions occurred after Anderson’s death and before formal revivor.
- The estate filed a motion for revivor January 25, 2016; the district court entered an order reviving the action in the personal representative’s name on March 1, 2016.
- Finkle filed two appeals: (1) from the posttrial denial of his new-trial motion and the November 30 judgment (filed Feb. 25, 2016); (2) from the March 1 revivor order (filed Mar. 22, 2016).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter judgment and deny the motion for new trial after Anderson’s death but before revivor | Anderson (through estate) implicitly contends posttrial orders remain effective and revivor could validate continuation | Finkle argues the action was suspended by Anderson’s death and any postdeath orders entered before revivor are void for lack of jurisdiction | Court held judgment and denial of new trial entered after Anderson’s death and before revivor were void for lack of jurisdiction and thus not appealable |
| Whether the order reviving the action is immediately appealable | Estate argues revivor order is valid and may be appealed along with underlying orders | Finkle appealed the revivor order seeking review of the order and all underlying void orders | Court held an order of revivor is not a final, appealable order; appellate court lacked jurisdiction and appeal must be dismissed |
| Merits: validity/enforceability of the promissory note (parol evidence, testimony credibility, consideration, personal liability) | Anderson argued the promissory note was valid and enforceable and judgment should stand | Finkle challenged enforceability on multiple grounds (parol evidence rule misapplied, Anderson’s inconsistent testimony, lack of consideration, lack of Finkle’s signature) | Court did not resolve the merits because postdeath judgment was void and appellate jurisdiction lacking; merits review precluded by dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Platte Valley Nat. Bank v. Lasen, 273 Neb. 602 (discussing revivor procedures and that revivor orders are not final)
- Fox v. Nick, 265 Neb. 986 (holding death suspends action until revival; postdeath orders without revivor have no effect)
- In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 (statutory interpretation and jurisdiction principles)
- State v. Bracey, 261 Neb. 14 (void order is a nullity)
- Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713 (revivor orders not final and not immediately appealable)
- In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760 (order reviving action is nonfinal)
- Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (appellate jurisdiction limited to final orders)
- Street v. Smith, 75 Neb. 434 (historical precedent on suspension and revival of actions by death)